13 MarchMPs set to reject no-deal exit as Brexit unknown looms
(Reuters) Yesterday, today and tomorrow might go down in history as some of the most important days in British politics, as parliament makes a series of votes to decide how Britain will exit the EU. Yesterday, lawmakers voted against PM Theresa May’s deal 391 votes to 242. Today, lawmakers vote on whether the government should pursue a no-deal Brexit, meaning they will leave the EU in 16 days without an agreement. Critics warn that such an exit would cause an economic shock, but some Brexit supporters say it is the only way to break from Brussels. If that vote is not passed, the government will hold a vote on Thursday to ask parliament whether Brexit should be delayed. Ministers have argued that a delay would open the door to Brexit being reversed through a second referendum.‘House of fools’: what the papers said about May’s Brexit defeatThe word ‘humiliation’ features strongly on today’s front pages as PM’s woes show no signs of easing
Theresa May looks downcast on the front pages of most of the papers today, which all focus on the defeat of the Brexit deal in the House of Commons last night.
The Guardian reports the vote as “Another huge defeat for May. And just 16 days until Brexit”. The paper says the prime minister pleaded, “with her voice cracked and fading”, with the House of Commons to pass the deal and that its failure to do so was “humiliating”, a “crushing new blow” and “a catastrophic defeat” for May.Jeremy Kinsman and Larry Haas weigh inNo kind words for Theresa MayBrexit: MPs to vote on no-deal after rejecting May’s plans
(BBC) MPs will vote later on whether to block the UK from leaving the EU without a deal, after they again firmly rejected Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement.
The deal was defeated in the Commons on Tuesday evening by 149 votes.
The government will publish guidance for businesses on tariffs and proposals for the Irish border in the event of no deal on Wednesday morning. The cabinet is due to meet at 08:00 GMT.The EU said no deal plans were “more important than ever”after the defeat.Britain Squirms After Another ‘No’ on Brexit
With 17 days to go, Parliament rejects Theresa May’s latest plan
(NYT Editorial board) Often lost in the cacophony of the intra-British debate is that the other 27 members of the union also have a major voice in disentangling an enormously complex relationship, and are not prepared to let the British pick and choose from the agreement they reached with Mrs. May. “On the E.U. side, we have done all that is possible to reach an agreement,” said a spokesman for the European Council president, Donald Tusk. “It is difficult to see what more we can do.” That was a point Mrs. May also tried, repeatedly and unsuccessfully, to drive home, that the deal she put to Parliament was “the best, and indeed only deal available.”

12 MarchTheresa May’s Brexit deal faces fresh vote in UK parliamentIrish PM: Brexit backstop not undermined by additional assurances (See Financial Times: What is the Brexit backstop and why is it so important?The exit deal’s most contentious feature forces both sides to make big choices)
8 March‘A slap in the face’: Barnier sets May on course for Brexit defeatPrime minister rebuffed as she pleads for last-ditch EU concessions before MPs vote
(The Guardian) The EU’s chief negotiator said in a series of tweets that the EU was committed “to give the UK the option to exit the single customs territory unilaterally, while the other elements of the backstop must be maintained to avoid a hard border. [The] UK will not be forced into a customs union against its will.”
The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, immediately replied: “With a very real deadline looming, now is not the time to rerun old arguments. The UK has put forward clear new proposals. We now need to agree a balanced solution that can work for both sides.”
The Northern Ireland-only backstop was vehemently rejected by the government’s partners in the DUP, who fear that it would effectively sever Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain by requiring checks as goods pass back and forth. …
In the United Kingdom, too, an antiquated party structure prevents the popular will from finding proper expression. Both Labour and the Conservatives are internally divided, but their leaders, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, respectively, are so determined to deliver Brexit that they have agreed to cooperate to attain it. The situation is so complicated that most Britons just want to get it over with, although it will be the defining event for the country for decades to come. But the collusion between Corbyn and May has aroused opposition in both parties, which in the case of Labour is bordering on rebellion.Why a no-deal Brexit is raising talk of a united Ireland
Calls for a referendum on re-uniting Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as negotiations continue
(CBC/Day6) Many Northern Irish voters who weren’t eligible to vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum are now coming of age — and according to McCormack, they’re unhappy with the events unfolding.
For them, older voters unfairly determined their futures with the vote, McCormack explains.
That’s because many have become accustomed to the benefits of being part of the European Union, like the ability to travel, work and study freely within the EU’s member countries.
“What you’re hearing from them now is that if there is any chance at keeping those benefits, then a united Ireland might be the way to go,” McCormack said.What’s the outlook on a referendum?
Ultimately, McCormack said the decision for a referendum comes down to Northern Ireland’s Secretary of State Karen Bradley, a Conservative minister in Theresa May’s government.
Under the Good Friday Agreement, it’s her responsibility to call a referendum if she feels, at any point, that a majority of citizens in Northern Ireland would vote in favour of a united Ireland.

27 FebruaryA ‘clean’ Brexit doesn’t exist. May finally admits it now
By Rafael Behr
(The Guardian) Nothing about Brexit means it can only happen on 29 March 2019. There is no rare alignment of the planets to make that a uniquely auspicious date for leaving the EU. Britain’s relationship with its nearest allies is not settled by astrology. The March deadline is simply a feature of the negotiating apparatus and, as the prime minister conceded in parliament yesterday, it can be moved. Leaving in April or June is still leaving.
It is the psychology of letting a deadline slip that makes Theresa May’s concession so significant. If Eurosceptics were interested in divorce on civil terms they would endure a short technical postponement to get it right. They would not resent the vote on a deferral that May has offered to MPs in the event that her deal is rejected. Article 50 extension has looked inevitable for weeks, if the objective is smooth passage to whatever comes next. So it is instructive that so many Brexiteers hate the idea.Theresa May offers MPs a vote to delay Brexit and prevent no-deal
(Business Insider) Prime Minister Theresa May has offered MPs a binding vote to delay Brexit and avoid leaving the European Union without a deal, a dramatic change of policy designed to prevent a new wave of Cabinet resignations.Ready or Not, A New Independence Day Awaits the U.K.
The date Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union technically doesn’t matter—but postponing it does.
(The Atlantic) …just because leaving the EU on March 29 is Britain’s legal default doesn’t mean it will necessarily come to pass. Most Brexit analysts will tell you it’s highly improbable—if not totally impossible—that the British government will ratify a withdrawal agreement (which has yet to be approved by Parliament) in the time remaining. This is especially true after the prime minister announced on Sunday that a parliamentary vote on her negotiated deal with the EU would be delayed further to March 12, a mere two and a half weeks before exit day.

25 FebruaryLabour Party Leader, Under Pressure, Backs a New Brexit Referendum
(NYT) Britain’s opposition Labour Party said on Monday that it was prepared to support a second referendum on withdrawal from the European Union, a shift that could have significant ramifications for the fate of Brexit and for the country’s future.
After the resignations of nine Labour Party members last week, and amid the prospect of more, the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, dropped his longstanding resistance to a second vote on leaving the bloc.
Getting an amendment for a new vote through Parliament any time soon is unlikely, but Mr. Corbyn’s support for one will cheer pro-European Britons, who have been fighting to reverse the outcome of the 2016 referendum decision. Without the support of Labour, there is no chance of a second referendum ever being authorized by lawmakers.

21 FebruaryFor the Dutch, Brexit is a mistake – and a big opportunityPolitically, the Netherlands has a very simple ambition here: to take the UK’s place in the EU.
(The Spectator) Whatever the reality, most Dutch people are convinced that the UK will be the biggest Brexit loser (with or without a deal). It’s not hard to see why they might think that: while the British government seems unprepared for the scenario of no-deal, contingency plans in the Netherlands are well underway. The country is among the best prepared in Europe for no-deal. Preparations for border and customs issues that might arise if Britain’s departure is acrimonious are in place.

18 FebruarySeven lawmakers quit UK Labour Party citing Brexit ‘betrayal’, anti-Semitism
(Reuters) – Seven Labour lawmakers quit on Monday over leader Jeremy Corbyn’s approach to Brexit and a row over anti-Semitism, saying Britain’s main opposition party had been “hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left”.
United by a desire for a second referendum on Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, they acknowledged that their resignations would not change the arithmetic in parliament, where there is as yet no majority for such a vote.
But their move underlines the increasing frustration within Labour over Corbyn’s reluctance to change his Brexit strategy – the leftist leader and long-time critic of the EU has stuck to his preference for a new election or his plan to leave the bloc.

The Atlantic: The trajectory of Brexit may threaten hard-earned peace in Ireland. Brexit drama, before the March 29 deadline when Britain is set to legally withdraw from the EU, has taken on the thrum of a dull, persistent headache. A withdrawal with no formal terms in place will affect every aspect of life and commerce in the United Kingdom, from the makeup of its workforce to drug testing to supermarket food prices. But the spikiest issue in negotiations is the question of the return of a “hard border”—customs and surveillance checkpoints and all—between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The sectarian violence around the decades when a real, tangible border existed is a recent memory for many, who now worry what horrors a deal-less Brexit might bring back.

15 FebruaryHow a ‘No-Deal’ Brexit Could Open a Path to Irish Unity
(NYT) …the increasing possibility that Britain will leave the European Union on March 29 without an agreement has rallied both moderates and extremists in the united-Ireland camp behind renewed talk of a single Irish state.
…lurking in the background of the debate is the possibility that the imposition of a hard border between north and south, with physical checkpoints, could reignite the violence that largely ended in 1998 — fears that were underscored by a recent car bombing in Londonderry and several hoaxes.
Given the choice between that and reunification, people across the island of Ireland have shown a preference for unity, though neither government has expressed the same enthusiasm.
Not helping matters, the regional assembly for Northern Ireland, based in Stormont, has been suspended for two years because of political feuds and scandals. And Northern Ireland’s fragile balance of power between Irish nationalists and pro-United Kingdom unionists has been upset, if not altogether destroyed, by the agreement of the conservative Democratic Unionist Party to prop up Prime Minister Theresa May’s minority government in London.

Letter from the U.K.Did Britain Overhear Theresa May’s Brexit Plan in a Hotel Bar?
By Sam KnightMost rational people think that Britain and the E.U. will still avoid the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit. But most rational people also thought that Britain would vote to stay in the E.U.
(The New Yorker) A reporter for ITV News, one of Britain’s main news channels, was sitting nearby and overheard portions of their conversation, in which Robbins outlined the likely endgame to May’s torturous attempt to steer her Brexit deal through the House of Commons. As things stand, Britain will leave the E.U.—with or without an agreement—at 11 P.M. London time on March 29th. In the bar in Brussels, [Oliver Robbins, Theresa May’s chief Brexit negotiator,] said that May is planning to make members of Parliament wait until the very last minute before giving them a choice between her unpopular compromise package with the E.U. or a lengthy delay to Brexit, during which the already agonizing negotiations would continue. “If they don’t vote for the deal,” Robbins is reported to have said, “then the extension is a long one.”

Inside Theresa May’s mind
Would the British PM really drive the UK over the cliff edge? Even her closest political friends don’t know.
(Politico Eu) Her choice: the economic catastrophe of no-deal or the national — and personal — humiliation of a last-minute climbdown to ask Brussels for a Brexit delay.
British government is Cabinet government — the prime minister is merely the first among equals. Without the support of a Cabinet, a prime minister cannot survive.
The obstacle to revoking Article 50, however, is legal as much as political. Even revocation with Cabinet support does not change the law, as set down by the EU (Withdrawal) Act, under which EU law ceases to apply in the U.K. from 11 p.m. on March 29. To remain in the EU but not abide by its law would cause a crisis of its own. In other words, May alone cannot stop Brexit — only parliament can.
The Cabinet, though, can authorize the PM to ask for a delay. Few believe they would not. And the assumption is that in such dire circumstances, the EU27 would unanimously agree such a request. Under the terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act, the government can amend exit day to delay Brexit without primary legislation.
… At the heart of the argument is the claim that May is first and foremost a patriot consumed by her duty to protect national security and the union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Labour’s Keir Starmer, who worked closely with May as director of public prosecutions when she was home secretary, has publicly insisted the PM takes her national security considerations too seriously to actively pursue a no-deal Brexit, which would leave Britain’s security services outside key intelligence networks.
Not everyone is so sure.
On January 21, the Evening Standard, the newspaper edited by former Chancellor George Osborne, published an editorial declaring May would go for no-deal to protect the Tory Party.
“Mrs May will never be the Prime Minister who forms a parliamentary majority at the expense of her party,” the editorial declared. “She will always, when the chips are down, put short-term Conservative unity first above what the national situation demands.”

1 FebruaryThe collective madness behind Britain’s latest Brexit planThe nation is ignoring reality as deadlines loom
By Ian Dunt, editor of Politics.co.uk, author of “Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now?” and a host on the Remainiacs podcast.
(WaPost) On Tuesday, British Prime Minister Theresa May demanded that her party reject her own Brexit plan so she could go back to negotiations with the European Union and dismantle an agreement that her government reached with the continent, on an impossiblyfast timeline, during talks that have already been ruled out. On every level, it is an insane way to behave. The British government is actively sabotaging the work it has spent the past two years completing and then doing a victory dance.
The problems all lie with something called the Irish backstop. You wouldn’t know it, given how deranged the party has become about it, but it is a Conservative idea. Their problem was simple: They wanted two contradictory things. On the one hand, the Brexit campaign during the referendum promised to “take back control” from Brussels. That meant returning regulatory decision-making to London. But on the other, it promised that everything would continue as before, with no effect on trade. That is impossible, because as soon as you take back regulatory powers, you have delays on the border with Europe.

Jeremy Kinsman: The end of Britain as we know it?The Brexit mess. I went to London to see it up close. Pretty gut-wrenching, really. I imagine some people are all fired up over Brexit. But most I met – including some “leave” voters are sick and sad over the partisan politics and lack of creative and unifying leadership.
(Open Canada) The UK needs a deal defining its trade and other engagement with the EU by March 29 or it will crash out of the customs union with the bloc that represents 44 percent of its markets. The UK government must retain membership in the EU free trade area, if not in a full customs union that also obliges the free movement of labour, or sink or swim in the trading and economic world as a no longer very large, autonomous, single economy.
Moreover, in a hard Brexit, the UK would have to accede to a “hard” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, thereby erasing one of the achievements of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that ended decades of deadly conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. May’s “deal” on the other hand provides a “backstop” to permit free trade across that border, subject to some inspections of goods coming into Northern Ireland from the UK. …
Both Dublin and Brussels have made it clear further EU concessions are unavailable. The Europeans have held their unity during these trying negotiations. They have protected the EU by not enabling the British to leave the EU on terms any other EU member would wish to emulate. But as a senior EU figure allowed recently, their firm line has been a “catastrophic success,” in that the UK could now crash out without a transitional or replacement deal March 29 to almost certain chaos and deep cost, including to the EU itself.
There is in Britain an over-abundance of immersion in the past. Novelist Paul Scott, in his Raj Quartet about the expiry of British imperial occupation of India, wrote that the British had come to “the end of themselves as they were.”
So it is again today. They need a wrenching effort to re-align themselves positively looking forward, with realism and without the hubris of gilded memories. They need to play a leading role in Europe in the twenty-first century by whatever institutional arrangements and ties are effective. Whoever can convince them of the substance and urgency of such a plan, over the tinsel of a remembered past, might indeed make Britain great again.

British parliament voted to renegotiate their Brexit deal. Within minutes, the EU said no
(Quartz) Despite voting to leave the EU, they can’t prevent a “no deal” Brexit. They also can’t reopen negotiations with the EU over the terms of the deal that they’ve already rejected or take out the Northern Ireland backstop agreement, which would keep the UK in the EU customs union and shackle Northern Ireland to single-market rules.
This evening (Jan. 29), in a series of votes, members made their views known on a variety of these issues—though the outcomes are almost entirely symbolic.
Politicians voted against leaving the EU ”without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship.” But though this may look like a statement of intent, “simply opposing ‘no deal’ is not enough to stop it,” British prime minister Theresa May said afterward.
A similar vote called on May to return to the EU and renegotiate the deal while leaving the Northern Ireland border open. It was championed as a sign of cross-party cooperation—but rejected by the EU in a matter of minutes. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, said the deal was “not open for re-negotiation” and “remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
An amendment proposed by Labour MP Yvette Cooper, which would have postponed Britain’s exit date, narrowly failed, sending the pound plunging to a trading-session low as investors brace for a chaotic exit.

27 JanuaryCEOs step up warnings about Brexit
(Globe & Mail) The crisis over Brexit is growing across the United Kingdom as companies begin moving operations, cutting back on investments and issuing dire warnings about cutbacks if the country crashes out of the European Union.
Business leaders have been fretting for months about the possibility the U.K. will leave the EU on March 29 without any arrangements for trade, border controls, banking and a host of other services
The mayhem has led many companies to start taking action. Last week Sony said it was moving its European headquarters from London to Amsterdam while freight giant P&O announced plans to shift the registration of its six English Channel ferries from the U.K. to Cyprus in order to keep its financial operations inside the EU. Several car makers, including Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., have also said they will shut their U.K. plants for up to three weeks in April to assess the impact of Brexit and Ford Motor Co. said a disorderly Brexit could cost the company US$800-million.
The starkest warning came from Airbus chief executive officer Tom Enders. In a message posted on the company’s website last week he raised doubts about the future of Airbus in the U.K. and its 14,000 local employees.

17 JanuaryHow Britain embraced referendums, the tool of dictators and demagogues
(The Economist) …there’s nothing new in recent warnings, from Barry Gardiner on the left or Theresa May on the right, that a “People’s Vote” would be “a gross betrayal of our democracy” that “undermines the whole principle of democracy in this country”. Yet the referendum is now an established part of our constitution: for better or worse, a tool that has been used 12 times since 1973 can no longer be described as “alien to all our traditions”.
From Harold Wilson to David Cameron, prime ministers have repeatedly called in the electorate as a political bomb-disposal unit, tasked with defusing explosive issues on their own backbenches. Yet in deploying the referendum as a tool of party management, they have failed to evolve any serious rules about when to use them, why or how. The history of Britain’s referendum debate offers some useful pointers, both on how we might use the device in future and on how a second referendum could avoid the pitfalls of the first.
The 2016 vote … reduced a question of mind-bending complexity to an abstract proposition, onto which voters could project incompatible versions of Brexit. It placed extraordinary power in the hands of two campaign vehicles that were under no responsibility to deliver on their promises; indeed, within days of the vote, the winning side had erased most of its website. …
Trying to solve the problems of one referendum by launching another might seem the political equivalent of drinking through a hangover. But Parliament is deadlocked and no party has a united position that it could put to a general election. We cannot break that deadlock by repeating the flawed exercise of 2016. But the Diceyan model of a “People’s Veto” offers something more hopeful.
A vote on a concrete proposition, whether Theresa May’s deal, “Norway Plus” or an alternative, would focus debate on the strengths and weaknesses of a specific policy, not on the abstract utopias (and dystopias) that predominated in 2016. Its advocates would be those charged with implementing it, in the knowledge that their claims would be judged against results if they won. The principle of responsible government could be enhanced, not diminished, by such a vote.
At present, both Mrs May and Mr Corbyn oppose a further referendum. If that changes, it will not be for reasons of constitutional principle, but because they cannot make a decision on Brexit without blowing their party to pieces. If we want to avoid deepening our political crisis, we need to think more carefully about the form such a referendum might take.
The path from “the People’s Vote” to a “People’s Veto” marks a return to an older constitutional tradition. It might just turn the referendum from a problem into a solution.The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling ClassWith Brexit, the chumocrats who drew borders from India to Ireland are getting a taste of their own medicine.
By Pankaj Mishra
(NYT Opinion) Britain’s rupture with the European Union is proving to be another act of moral dereliction by the country’s rulers. The Brexiteers, pursuing a fantasy of imperial-era strength and self-sufficiency, have repeatedly revealed their hubris, mulishness and ineptitude over the past two years. Though originally a “Remainer,” Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit and laying down red lines that undermined negotiations with Brussels and doomed her deal to resoundingly bipartisan rejection this week in Parliament.
Such a pattern of egotistic and destructive behavior by the British elite flabbergasts many people today. But it was already manifest seven decades ago during Britain’s rash exit from India.May’s Brexit Deal Failed. What Happens Now?
Parliament voted to reject Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal just 10 weeks before Britain was scheduled to leave the European Union. Here’s what could happen next.

15-16 JanuaryEU and UK are nearing a ‘no deal’ Brexit neither want: Moscovici
(Reuters) – The European Union and United Kingdom are getting close to a “no-deal” Brexit that neither party wants, in the wake of Prime Minister Theresa May’s parliament defeat, said EU economics commissioner Pierre Moscovici.
Asked whether Britain could have a second referendum which could result in a U-turn and a decision to stay in the European Union, Moscovici replied that European legal bodies had said this was possible.British politics goes over a cliffDespite the defeat of historic proportions, the prime minister’s aides intend to resuscitate the Brexit deal
By Tom McTague, POLITICO’s chief U.K. correspondent
(Politico Eu) British politics is broken. It may not be fixable in time to solve the Brexit mess.
The U.K. wakes up Wednesday with a government unable to govern — in office, but without the numbers to fulfill its central purpose: a negotiated exit from the European Union.
A defeat of previously unimaginable proportions Tuesday — 432 to 202 — has left the country adrift, floating towards no deal, with no party or faction in parliament able to command a majority for any way of moving off the course it has set for itself. The only thing MPs can agree strongly on is a desire to avoid an economically damaging no deal, but they currently can’t settle on a mechanism for how to do so.Brexit massacre and Chinese heavy hand against Canada: on CTV’s diplomatic community (video)Jeremy Kinsman and Lawrence Haas weigh in on Theresa May’s record defeat of her Brexit deal and ongoing tensions between China, Canada and the United States.Mayday tumult across the Atlantic. The Brexit Deal’s Historic DefeatFor years, British Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Her adversaries used those words against her in Parliament.
(The Atlantic) On Tuesday, British lawmakers overwhelmingly voted against May’s negotiated agreement with the EU, delivering a damaging (albeit foreseeable) blow to her Brexit strategy. The deal, which outlines the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU and paves the way for the next phase of negotiations that will decide their future trade relationship, was reached by negotiators late last year. But it still needs to be ratified by both the British and European Parliaments before it can go into effect, and without such an agreement in place, the U.K. will leave the bloc without a deal on March 29.May and Brexit Face Uncertain Future After Crushing Defeat in Parliament
(NYT) Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday suffered a humiliating defeat over her plan to withdraw Britain from the European Union, thrusting the country further into political chaos with only 10 weeks to go until it is scheduled to leave the bloc.
The 432-to-202 vote to reject her proposal was the biggest defeat in the House of Commons for a prime minister in recent British history. And it underscores how comprehensively Ms. May has failed to build consensus behind any single vision of how to exit the European Union.
Now factions in Parliament will offer their own proposals — setting off a new, unpredictable stage in Brexit, the process of withdrawing from the bloc.
“She has completely lost control of the process, and her version of Brexit must now be dead, if she loses by 230 votes,” said John Springford, deputy director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research institute.

8-9 JanuaryBrexit: PM may have to draw up new deal three days after Commons defeatAmendment wins cross-party backing to stop government ‘running down clock’ to no deal
MPs will attempt to force the government to return with an alternative to Theresa May’s Brexit deal within three days of her plan being defeated in parliament.
Another five-day debate leading up to a vote on May’s deal on 15 January will start on Wednesday, opened by the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay.
The amendment says that following defeat of the government’s plan, which is widely anticipated, “a minister of the crown shall table within three sitting days a motion … considering the process of exiting the European Union under article 50”.Theresa May suffers Commons defeat by MPs fighting to block a no-deal Brexit
(Business Insider) Theresa May’s ability to pursue a no-deal Brexit has been dealt a major blow after the House of Commons voted for an amendment designed to bring parts of the UK government to a halt if it attempts to crash out of the EU.
The cross-party amendment to the Finance Bill, brought forward by Labour MP Yvette Cooper, is designed to prevent the government from budgeting for a no-deal Brexit.
MPs voted by 303 to 296 votes to support the amendment in the clearest sign yet that there is a majority in the House of Commons to block a no-deal Brexit.

Bloomberg Politics: The respite is over in British politics, as Parliament returns and lawmakers are thrust straight into the Brexit quagmire. The next three months will shape the country’s history — one way or another — for years.
The U.K. is due to leave the European Union on March 29, and will crash out into legal limbo unless Prime Minister Theresa May can get politicians to back the Brexit agreement she negotiated with Brussels. But the concessions she promised to secure from the bloc haven’t (yet) materialized, and it looks likely her deal will be rejected when it goes to a parliamentary vote next week.
The battle lines are being drawn for what happens after that. More than 200 members of Parliament have written to May urging her to rule out a no-deal Brexit, while a cross-party group of high-profile lawmakers is trying to use a separate vote this week to make crashing out of the EU impossible without the approval of the House of Commons.
The campaign for a second referendum is also not going away, bolstered by a YouGov poll over the break that showed Remain would win if another vote was held now. At the moment, it’s an issue putting the most pressure on opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who looks unwilling to support another plebiscite despite growing demand from his members.
Meanwhile, May is plowing on, warning lawmakers they will plunge the country into “uncharted territory” if they rebuff her deal. It arguably already is. – Stuart Biggs

4 JanuaryHard Brexit Truths
By Bill Emmott, former editor-in-chief of The Economist.Though UK Prime Minister Theresa May has struck a Brexit deal with the EU, the chances that it will gain parliamentary approval on January 14 seem vanishingly slim. Instead, the UK increasingly seems to be facing a choice between two extremes, each of which would likely involve another referendum.(Project Syndicate) In 2016, Northern Ireland voted by a clear margin of 56%-44% to remain in the EU. Though the minority Conservative government is being propped up by the ten MPs representing Northern Ireland’s pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party, an even larger majority of Northern Irish voters would probably choose the EU today.
An honest Brexiteer should therefore admit that leaving the EU on their terms may well lead to the dissolution of the UK. Irish reunification would almost certainly make another independence referendum in Scotland irresistible, though it is impossible to know which way it would go.
Last June, when asked about business leaders’ fears over Brexit, Johnson infamously declared, “Fuck business.” If he were honest, he would apply the same crude dismissiveness to Northern Ireland and Scotland. At least then it would be clear where the Brexiteers actually stand.